Refusal
of Medical Treatment due to Religious beliefs in a cross-culture perspective in
the Jehovah’s Witness and Catholic traditions.
Refusal of Medical Treatment because of Religious beliefs is a continuing problem in America. It’s not just one particular culture in American, but almost all cultures ranging from Christianity, Islamic, Jehovah’s Witness, etc. The contents of this paper will dive into the religious grounds of Jehovah’s Witness and Catholicism. Each religion has their different view for which medical treatments are forbidden according to their beliefs. One religion may see blood related procedures as dishonorable. While another religion may see abortion and sterilization as an unforgiveable because their religious beliefs see that any way of harming a living being is not justifiable. This issue of medical treatment does not only have to do with the aspect of being faithful to religion, but has also stepped into the light of political debate. There is debate between religion and state on whether parent should be able to act paternalistically toward their children even though they are supposed to protect them. Some bioethicists have a general consensus that religion should not be a ground in which people can reject medical treatment for themselves or others if they have a life-threatening illness. There are people such as Rawls that argue that religion for example Jehovah’s witnesses can’t legitimately be stopped from making decisions on the behalf of their children, even if it’s a life or death situation. Rawls uses examples from the liberal stance to support his theory on the topic. The situation becomes unstable due to an increased conflict over if laws that are enacted to protect against refusal of medical treatment can’t be enforced because of “freedom of religion”. In another instance a pastor was bitten by a snake and did not want to receive medical treatment because he thought that god would save him. Another example the church ministers were outraged at the fact a hospital performed an abortion on one of their religious practitioners even though both the mother and baby would have died. Through research the goal is to show the effect different types of religion can have effects on different aspects of medicine and how each religion has different takes on different medical treatments. During the paper we will dive into more detail on the example given above and within the subject matter of paternalism of parents with their children, as well as the debate between religion and the state.
The first point that we will begin with is that of paternalism when concerning parent and their children. Parents are continuing to allow their children to die by refusing medical treatment because of their religious beliefs. The general consensus in a piece written by Robert MacDougall called, “Rawls and the refusal of Medical Treatment for Children”, which argues for the point that the general consensus of bioethicist is that children should not be denied medical treatment by anyone for any reason if in fact the illness is life-threatening and the treatment is the only way to save them. On the other hand according to Rawls he argues that the parents should be able to make this decision depending on their view of what a good life for their children no matter the condition of the children. Robert MacDougall who is arguing in the view point of Rawls states, “It is out of regard for protection of the freedom of religion of the children that parents must be allowed to choose for their children in accord with their own religious values and that this must be the design from the original position”.[i] He is basically stating that children too young are not capable of understanding the situation so it’s the parents right to choose for their children in relation to their religious beliefs. This can pose a problem for the future if scholars are arguing that this action is justified because then more parents that strongly believe in their religion may more openly perform these actions. The article describes that in a general consensus among Bioethicists that Jehovah’s witnesses can’t be able to refuse live-saving blood transfusions of their children.[ii] There is in the liberal community some plausibility in believing that the parents should be able to refuse the treatment. This occurs because of the freedom of religion that is incorporated into the law of the American Government. The question that needs answering is when this freedom in America needs to be taken away, if it’s to save a life or to avoid a devastating occurrence.
Catholicism has their own view on certain medical procedures that are unacceptable to their way of religion, which are abortion and sterilization. Catholics have a strong belief that abortion or any procedure alike is a high offense toward their religious beliefs. The journal article, “The SkepDoc.”, gave an example where in Ireland there was public indignation over the preventable death of Savita Halappanavar, who had a miscarriage during the 17th week of pregnancy that resulted in blood poisoning.[iii] Savita was denied surgery because the fetal heartbeat could still be detected, even though fetal deal was inevitable. So both the baby and Savita ended up dying because of the religious beliefs of the Catholic Church that would not have anything to do with a procedure, which could harm or kill a living being. Another example of this in when the churches refuse to use vaccines even after the outbreak of a life-threatening in 21 people being affected. The church believed in faith healing instead of using medicine to help their practitioners. The article quotes one of the pastors from the church in which Terri Pearsons states, “so I’m going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts”,[iv] which means that even though we know that there is a problem that through faith that we know god will save us. If Catholics believe that abortion is unjust because it deals with the death of another human being. The question to know be answered is, why does the pastor allow for so many people to die from disease by rejecting the vaccines? It seems a bit hypocritical that the catholic religion would scorn those who would harm another living being by a medical procedure, but then indirectly do the same by reject medicines necessary to save someone’s life.
The occurrence of refusal of medical treatment is not only happening with parents refusing medical treatment for their children, but even adults are refusing the treatment for themselves. CNN news covered another story in which a pastor got bit by a snake, but refused medical treatment and went home and ended up dying from the venom from the snake. The pastor believed that god would save him because the bible states, “they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them. They shall lay hand on the sick and they shall recover”.[v] This means that if you are truly a believer of god that anything poisonous from snakes will not hurt them. The gives an example of how religion can warp people’s realistic thinking making them perform unwarranted actions. Also this puts into question if people who need life-saving medical treated should be forced to by the law no matter the reason for refusal even if its freedom of religion. It is said that he was bitten many times before and was healed, but if he died the pastor said,” it was god’s will”[vi]. The snake pastor may have taken coincidence or maybe the snake that bit him was not poisonous to the extent to kill him. Some of the pastors say that they are in a state of “ecstasy” meaning they can actually feel the presence of god. To make a point already stated maybe religion is engulfing some people’s lives in which their mind in being warped and they don’t see reality for what it really is. Not taking away anything from people who practice religion extensively, but they also what to realize the situation that they are in and recognize that medical treatment can help them with their illness.
Now to discuss the reasons for the fine line between the state and religion that is discussed in the piece by Herrera called, “Disputes between State and Religion over Medical Treatment for Minors”. It states that state inference in family medical judgments can’t be taken lightly because of the past history of religious prosecution and condemning religious practices.[vii] There is a narrow line in which it is justified for parental and religious choice is subject for interference by the state. This is known as “carefully limited intrusion”, than what is compared to the past in Nazi, Germany in which the medical establishments took away any choice in the matter of medical treatment.[viii] The people were forced to accept every medical treatment, which turned the healthcare system into a weapon. A point is argued that in terms of medical treatment the parents see that treatment as a potential harm to their child. This fine line of debate between what is justified and what’s intrusive on people’s rights of “freedom of religion”, is allowing for more and more children to die from lack of treatment. The government needs to come up with some sort of regulation that abides by people’s religion and the safety of people. In another piece by Tuohey called, “A Fatal Conflict”, discusses a conflict that occurs between the state and church after a medical procedure was conducted. The women developed uterine cancer in this story and have to have an abortion otherwise both the child and mother would die. The church steps in after since the woman was part of strong religious church to say, “ no reason however serious and tragic, that can justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being”.[ix] This shows the strong will of religion and the power it has over the medical field and the government. Also this statement shows that religion can be intrusive on the practice of medicine without much consequence.
In conclusion, refusal of medical treatment due to religious beliefs is recurring issue for both children and adults in America. The problem stems from both personal choice and paternalism of children. The consensus on the issue by bioethicist is that refusing medical treatment is unjust and should allow children to get treatment even if the parents opt against it. There is also a fine line between the state and religion on how intrusive law can be when if come to medical treatment and religious beliefs. The debate also stems if people should be given treatment any way, especially children if it is to save their life. This argument will continue to happen for many years to come unless there can be an agreement between the state and religion on when people need to receive treatment even if their religious beliefs conflict with the procedure.
Endnotes
[i] Robert MacDougall, D. 2010. "Rawls and the Refusal of Medical Treatment to Children." Journal Of Medicine & Philosophy 35, no. 2: 130-153. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed May 20, 2014).
[ii] Robert MacDougall, D. 2010. "Rawls and the Refusal of Medical Treatment to Children." Journal Of Medicine & Philosophy 35, no. 2: 130-153. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed May 20, 2014).
iii] HALL, HARRIET. 2014. "The SkepDoc." Skeptic 19, no. 1: 8-9. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed May 20, 2014).
[iv] HALL, HARRIET. 2014. "The SkepDoc." Skeptic 19, no. 1: 8-9. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed May 20, 2014).
[v] Fantz, Ashley, and AnneClaire Stapleton. "Reality show snake-handling preacher dies -- of snakebite." CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/16/us/snake-salvation-pastor-bite/ (accessed May 20, 2014).
[vi] Fantz, Ashley, and AnneClaire Stapleton. "Reality show snake-handling preacher dies -- of snakebite." CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/16/us/snake-salvation-pastor-bite/ (accessed May 20, 2014).
[vii] Herrera, C. D. 2005. "Disputes between State and Religion over Medical Treatment for Minors." Journal Of Church & State 47, no. 4: 823-839. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed May 20, 2014).
[viii] Herrera, C. D. 2005. "Disputes between State and Religion over Medical Treatment for Minors." Journal Of Church & State 47, no. 4: 823-839. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed May 20, 2014).
[ix] Tuohey, John F. 2011. "A Fatal Conflict." Commonweal 138, no. 2: 8-10. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed May 20, 2014).
Krishan Bajnath
Refusal of Medical Treatment because of Religious beliefs is a continuing problem in America. It’s not just one particular culture in American, but almost all cultures ranging from Christianity, Islamic, Jehovah’s Witness, etc. The contents of this paper will dive into the religious grounds of Jehovah’s Witness and Catholicism. Each religion has their different view for which medical treatments are forbidden according to their beliefs. One religion may see blood related procedures as dishonorable. While another religion may see abortion and sterilization as an unforgiveable because their religious beliefs see that any way of harming a living being is not justifiable. This issue of medical treatment does not only have to do with the aspect of being faithful to religion, but has also stepped into the light of political debate. There is debate between religion and state on whether parent should be able to act paternalistically toward their children even though they are supposed to protect them. Some bioethicists have a general consensus that religion should not be a ground in which people can reject medical treatment for themselves or others if they have a life-threatening illness. There are people such as Rawls that argue that religion for example Jehovah’s witnesses can’t legitimately be stopped from making decisions on the behalf of their children, even if it’s a life or death situation. Rawls uses examples from the liberal stance to support his theory on the topic. The situation becomes unstable due to an increased conflict over if laws that are enacted to protect against refusal of medical treatment can’t be enforced because of “freedom of religion”. In another instance a pastor was bitten by a snake and did not want to receive medical treatment because he thought that god would save him. Another example the church ministers were outraged at the fact a hospital performed an abortion on one of their religious practitioners even though both the mother and baby would have died. Through research the goal is to show the effect different types of religion can have effects on different aspects of medicine and how each religion has different takes on different medical treatments. During the paper we will dive into more detail on the example given above and within the subject matter of paternalism of parents with their children, as well as the debate between religion and the state.
The first point that we will begin with is that of paternalism when concerning parent and their children. Parents are continuing to allow their children to die by refusing medical treatment because of their religious beliefs. The general consensus in a piece written by Robert MacDougall called, “Rawls and the refusal of Medical Treatment for Children”, which argues for the point that the general consensus of bioethicist is that children should not be denied medical treatment by anyone for any reason if in fact the illness is life-threatening and the treatment is the only way to save them. On the other hand according to Rawls he argues that the parents should be able to make this decision depending on their view of what a good life for their children no matter the condition of the children. Robert MacDougall who is arguing in the view point of Rawls states, “It is out of regard for protection of the freedom of religion of the children that parents must be allowed to choose for their children in accord with their own religious values and that this must be the design from the original position”.[i] He is basically stating that children too young are not capable of understanding the situation so it’s the parents right to choose for their children in relation to their religious beliefs. This can pose a problem for the future if scholars are arguing that this action is justified because then more parents that strongly believe in their religion may more openly perform these actions. The article describes that in a general consensus among Bioethicists that Jehovah’s witnesses can’t be able to refuse live-saving blood transfusions of their children.[ii] There is in the liberal community some plausibility in believing that the parents should be able to refuse the treatment. This occurs because of the freedom of religion that is incorporated into the law of the American Government. The question that needs answering is when this freedom in America needs to be taken away, if it’s to save a life or to avoid a devastating occurrence.
Catholicism has their own view on certain medical procedures that are unacceptable to their way of religion, which are abortion and sterilization. Catholics have a strong belief that abortion or any procedure alike is a high offense toward their religious beliefs. The journal article, “The SkepDoc.”, gave an example where in Ireland there was public indignation over the preventable death of Savita Halappanavar, who had a miscarriage during the 17th week of pregnancy that resulted in blood poisoning.[iii] Savita was denied surgery because the fetal heartbeat could still be detected, even though fetal deal was inevitable. So both the baby and Savita ended up dying because of the religious beliefs of the Catholic Church that would not have anything to do with a procedure, which could harm or kill a living being. Another example of this in when the churches refuse to use vaccines even after the outbreak of a life-threatening in 21 people being affected. The church believed in faith healing instead of using medicine to help their practitioners. The article quotes one of the pastors from the church in which Terri Pearsons states, “so I’m going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts”,[iv] which means that even though we know that there is a problem that through faith that we know god will save us. If Catholics believe that abortion is unjust because it deals with the death of another human being. The question to know be answered is, why does the pastor allow for so many people to die from disease by rejecting the vaccines? It seems a bit hypocritical that the catholic religion would scorn those who would harm another living being by a medical procedure, but then indirectly do the same by reject medicines necessary to save someone’s life.
The occurrence of refusal of medical treatment is not only happening with parents refusing medical treatment for their children, but even adults are refusing the treatment for themselves. CNN news covered another story in which a pastor got bit by a snake, but refused medical treatment and went home and ended up dying from the venom from the snake. The pastor believed that god would save him because the bible states, “they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them. They shall lay hand on the sick and they shall recover”.[v] This means that if you are truly a believer of god that anything poisonous from snakes will not hurt them. The gives an example of how religion can warp people’s realistic thinking making them perform unwarranted actions. Also this puts into question if people who need life-saving medical treated should be forced to by the law no matter the reason for refusal even if its freedom of religion. It is said that he was bitten many times before and was healed, but if he died the pastor said,” it was god’s will”[vi]. The snake pastor may have taken coincidence or maybe the snake that bit him was not poisonous to the extent to kill him. Some of the pastors say that they are in a state of “ecstasy” meaning they can actually feel the presence of god. To make a point already stated maybe religion is engulfing some people’s lives in which their mind in being warped and they don’t see reality for what it really is. Not taking away anything from people who practice religion extensively, but they also what to realize the situation that they are in and recognize that medical treatment can help them with their illness.
Now to discuss the reasons for the fine line between the state and religion that is discussed in the piece by Herrera called, “Disputes between State and Religion over Medical Treatment for Minors”. It states that state inference in family medical judgments can’t be taken lightly because of the past history of religious prosecution and condemning religious practices.[vii] There is a narrow line in which it is justified for parental and religious choice is subject for interference by the state. This is known as “carefully limited intrusion”, than what is compared to the past in Nazi, Germany in which the medical establishments took away any choice in the matter of medical treatment.[viii] The people were forced to accept every medical treatment, which turned the healthcare system into a weapon. A point is argued that in terms of medical treatment the parents see that treatment as a potential harm to their child. This fine line of debate between what is justified and what’s intrusive on people’s rights of “freedom of religion”, is allowing for more and more children to die from lack of treatment. The government needs to come up with some sort of regulation that abides by people’s religion and the safety of people. In another piece by Tuohey called, “A Fatal Conflict”, discusses a conflict that occurs between the state and church after a medical procedure was conducted. The women developed uterine cancer in this story and have to have an abortion otherwise both the child and mother would die. The church steps in after since the woman was part of strong religious church to say, “ no reason however serious and tragic, that can justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being”.[ix] This shows the strong will of religion and the power it has over the medical field and the government. Also this statement shows that religion can be intrusive on the practice of medicine without much consequence.
In conclusion, refusal of medical treatment due to religious beliefs is recurring issue for both children and adults in America. The problem stems from both personal choice and paternalism of children. The consensus on the issue by bioethicist is that refusing medical treatment is unjust and should allow children to get treatment even if the parents opt against it. There is also a fine line between the state and religion on how intrusive law can be when if come to medical treatment and religious beliefs. The debate also stems if people should be given treatment any way, especially children if it is to save their life. This argument will continue to happen for many years to come unless there can be an agreement between the state and religion on when people need to receive treatment even if their religious beliefs conflict with the procedure.
Endnotes
[i] Robert MacDougall, D. 2010. "Rawls and the Refusal of Medical Treatment to Children." Journal Of Medicine & Philosophy 35, no. 2: 130-153. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed May 20, 2014).
[ii] Robert MacDougall, D. 2010. "Rawls and the Refusal of Medical Treatment to Children." Journal Of Medicine & Philosophy 35, no. 2: 130-153. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed May 20, 2014).
iii] HALL, HARRIET. 2014. "The SkepDoc." Skeptic 19, no. 1: 8-9. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed May 20, 2014).
[iv] HALL, HARRIET. 2014. "The SkepDoc." Skeptic 19, no. 1: 8-9. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed May 20, 2014).
[v] Fantz, Ashley, and AnneClaire Stapleton. "Reality show snake-handling preacher dies -- of snakebite." CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/16/us/snake-salvation-pastor-bite/ (accessed May 20, 2014).
[vi] Fantz, Ashley, and AnneClaire Stapleton. "Reality show snake-handling preacher dies -- of snakebite." CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/16/us/snake-salvation-pastor-bite/ (accessed May 20, 2014).
[vii] Herrera, C. D. 2005. "Disputes between State and Religion over Medical Treatment for Minors." Journal Of Church & State 47, no. 4: 823-839. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed May 20, 2014).
[viii] Herrera, C. D. 2005. "Disputes between State and Religion over Medical Treatment for Minors." Journal Of Church & State 47, no. 4: 823-839. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed May 20, 2014).
[ix] Tuohey, John F. 2011. "A Fatal Conflict." Commonweal 138, no. 2: 8-10. Religion and Philosophy Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed May 20, 2014).
Krishan Bajnath